Jump to content

The General Election 2015 Thread


Recommended Posts

 

 

Is it just me but or do others think that Miliband seems to have been spending far too much time watching Tony Blair videos of how to be Smarmy on prime time TV?  Murphy is far more natural and I have to say I rather liked his more old fashioned shoot from the hip style.

 

Miliband is just such an appalling nonentity! Perhaps excluding Feckless Fergus, SNP MSP for Inverness, Miliband must be just about the most uninspiring and utterly dull politician I have had the misfortune to set eyes on.

Pardon me if I have said this already, but he looks like Mr Bean, he sounds like Mr Bean and he speaks like a Third Year kid on the losing side of a school debate.

I realise that the Labour Party have landed themselves with one or two complete liabilities over the years, and I mentioned one of them in #124. Another was the permanently inebriated George Brown. But this guy just about takes the biscuit. Frank Spencer would be far more credible that Ed Miliband.

Murphy? Well he's certainly a lot better, but that might tend to damn the man with faint praise. He's certainly reasonably credible although the singy-songy "I'm a really nice man, honest" voice does tend to pall after a while. Credit to him for his Referendum tour of the country.

I can remember Labour leaders and Leaderships right back to Gaitskell and that arch bruiser Bessie Braddock who looked like Arthur Mullard's older brother and in my experience what they have at the moment is rock bottom.

Edited by Charles Bannerman
  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 528
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Again the reports are inaccurate. Two well known individuals who have made a habit of following Jim Murphy and rudely and very vocally disrupting his meetings who were until yesterday among the 114,00

Achtung! I actually find it hilarious listening to to the British nationalists continually bleating about the referendum, which they won FFS, and how it's all the SNP are interested in. It goes s

Posted Images

Jim and Ed are hardly best mates. Jim possibly thinks that Ed isn't prime minister material. But then what do I know? I can't read minds like some folk on here.

 

Is it just me but or do others think that Miliband seems to have been spending far too much time watching Tony Blair videos of how to be Smarmy on prime time TV?  Murphy is far more natural and I have to say I rather liked his more old fashioned shoot from the hip style.

Milliband's stage-managed gawking down the Camera is certainly creepy in the extreme but it is Murphy who is the greatest gift to the SNP. He comes over as patronising and insincere and his spiel about the wifie who couldn't afford shoes left my skin crawling.I'm sure I'm not alone in finding him cringeworthy.

  • Agree 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

The SNP secretly preferring a Tory government slur is beginning to wear just a little thin....

Except that a Tory government would offer the SNP a far better opportunity to glean the votes of the downtrodden proletariat by way of their standard strategy of grievance politics.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

The SNP secretly preferring a Tory government slur is beginning to wear just a little thin....

Except that a Tory government would offer the SNP a far better opportunity to glean the votes of the downtrodden proletariat by way of their standard strategy of grievance politics.

 

:yawn01:  :yawn01:

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

The SNP secretly preferring a Tory government slur is beginning to wear just a little thin....

Except that a Tory government would offer the SNP a far better opportunity to glean the votes of the downtrodden proletariat by way of their standard strategy of grievance politics.

 

:yawn01:  :yawn01:

 

You can yawn as much as you want but that will not stop certain things from being true.  You may find it tiresome but the fault lies with Sturgeon and her quite ridiculous statement that she wants to lock the Tories out of Downing Street.

 

Clearly the SNP cannot form a UK Government.  Realistically only the Tories and Labour can.  She says she wants work with Labour to lock the Tories out of Downing street, but by fighting against Labour the outcome she says she doesn't want becomes much more likely.  If she genuinely wants to work with Labour to lock the Tories out of Downing street then she should withdraw the SNP candidates and support Labour.  With a slogan of, let me think,..... :ponder: ........ :idea:     "better together" I am sure they could win.

 

But we all know that the SNP is not going to take that kind of sensible, cooperative approach.  Sturgeon's pathetic justification for competing against labour is so that the SNP can fight Scotland's corner and "keep Labour honest".  But does anyone really believe that?  First of all, what is the point of keeping Labour honest if the SNP have put Labour in to opposition rather than into Government?  Secondly, the SNP will be well aware that the Labour Party has more incentive than any other party to give Scots a good deal.  One would have had a bit more respect for Sturgeon if she could simply have said the sensible thing of "we will work constructively in Scotland's interests with what ever party wins the election".

 

Bear in mind that the whole premise of the SNP's case for independence is that Scotland's interests are not best served by the policies that come out of the UK Government.  They are not going to commit political suicide by working constructively with Labour  (or anyone else) to demonstrate that the UK Parliament actually works very well for Scotland.

 

Sturgeon can say what she likes but the fact remains that another Tory Government in Westminster, (which will be unpopular in Scotland),  will be the best way to keep the flames of independence burning.  By engaging in a bitter battle with Labour and trying to win as many seats as possible from Labour, the SNP increase the chance of getting the outcome they want.  No doubt a Tory led change to the Barnett formula will be the kind of "Material change" she will use to justify another referendum in the near future.

 

Keep the Labour Party honest!  Sturgeon should start by keeping her own party honest first.

  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

The SNP secretly preferring a Tory government slur is beginning to wear just a little thin....

Except that a Tory government would offer the SNP a far better opportunity to glean the votes of the downtrodden proletariat by way of their standard strategy of grievance politics.

 

:yawn01:  :yawn01:

 

You can yawn as much as you want but that will not stop certain things from being true.  You may find it tiresome but the fault lies with Sturgeon and her quite ridiculous statement that she wants to lock the Tories out of Downing Street.

 

Clearly the SNP cannot form a UK Government.  Realistically only the Tories and Labour can.  She says she wants work with Labour to lock the Tories out of Downing street, but by fighting against Labour the outcome she says she doesn't want becomes much more likely.  If she genuinely wants to work with Labour to lock the Tories out of Downing street then she should withdraw the SNP candidates and support Labour.  With a slogan of, let me think,..... :ponder: ........ :idea:     "better together" I am sure they could win.

 

But we all know that the SNP is not going to take that kind of sensible, cooperative approach.  Sturgeon's pathetic justification for competing against labour is so that the SNP can fight Scotland's corner and "keep Labour honest".  But does anyone really believe that?  First of all, what is the point of keeping Labour honest if the SNP have put Labour in to opposition rather than into Government?  Secondly, the SNP will be well aware that the Labour Party has more incentive than any other party to give Scots a good deal.  One would have had a bit more respect for Sturgeon if she could simply have said the sensible thing of "we will work constructively in Scotland's interests with what ever party wins the election".

 

Bear in mind that the whole premise of the SNP's case for independence is that Scotland's interests are not best served by the policies that come out of the UK Government.  They are not going to commit political suicide by working constructively with Labour  (or anyone else) to demonstrate that the UK Parliament actually works very well for Scotland.

 

Sturgeon can say what she likes but the fact remains that another Tory Government in Westminster, (which will be unpopular in Scotland),  will be the best way to keep the flames of independence burning.  By engaging in a bitter battle with Labour and trying to win as many seats as possible from Labour, the SNP increase the chance of getting the outcome they want.  No doubt a Tory led change to the Barnett formula will be the kind of "Material change" she will use to justify another referendum in the near future.

 

Keep the Labour Party honest!  Sturgeon should start by keeping her own party honest first.

 

Whilst in minority government at Holyrood the SNP had rather an effective record of working constructively with other parties including Labour, so effectively in fact that the electorate rewarded them with an outright majority the next time around notwithstanding a proportional representation system specifically designed to prevent just that.

 

Of course the ultimate aim of the SNP is independence for Scotland as it has been for the best part of a century but that aim is at least a decade away now and despite what you might suggest, Scottish nationalism is nothing to do with disdain the rest of the UK but everything to do with social justice and a fairer society the sort of aspirations abandoned by 'New Labour' in their lust for power prior to the 1997 election.

 

Accordingly, you might just forgive me for finding rather tedious the recycling of spurious nonsense spouted by the Unionists during the referendum campaign in an election which is much more to do with a fairer distribution of wealth and resources than it is to do with the constitution.

 

If however, the Tories in fear of UKIP and their own rabid right wing choose to alter the constitutional landscape then that will be a very different matter indeed but it will not be a matter for the SNP or any other political party to impose their will but will, as Ms Sturgeon constantly reiterates, be a matter for the people.

 

There will not be another referendum unless a party or a combination of parties with such a commitment in their manifestos gets a majority at Holyrood. That is democracy.

Edited by Kingsmills
  • Agree 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

Scottish nationalism is nothing to do with disdain the rest of the UK

 

 

There will not be another referendum unless a party or a combination of parties with such a commitment in their manifestos gets a majority at Holyrood. That is democracy.

 

Scottish Nationalism has, and always has had, EVERYTHING to do with disdain for the rest of the UK, or more specifically most of it in the form of England. Anglophobia remains alive and well within the ranks, and is a vital binding force for the SNP, but in the persona of the Tories and Westminster since it's not terribly PC these days to show your true racism. The "them and poor oppressed us" myth is always an essential element of Nationalism.

 

In terms of another referendum, the SNP quite simply intend to try to keep having them as often as they can get away with doing so until they get the result they want, whereupon they will try to shut up shop forever. I am sure they will be hoping against hope that this wheeze gets a big boost from the election of another Tory government pledging to have an in-out EU referendum.

What intrigues me is the illogicality of their adherence to that old IRA saying "you have to be lucky all the time but we only have to be lucky once" inasmuch as they think it's OK that all they need to do is to win one referendum, irrespective of how many they have lost.

However common sense does seem to be prevailing since a recent Ipsos-Mori survey shows that having the backsides bored off us and the economy thrown into further years of uncertainty by way of a second referendum ranks a pitiful 19th out of 23 policies.

And that will be despite the 44.7 chipping in for all they are worth.

Scots are apparently more enthusiastic about an EU referendum than another separation one.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Scottish nationalism is nothing to do with disdain the rest of the UK

 

 

There will not be another referendum unless a party or a combination of parties with such a commitment in their manifestos gets a majority at Holyrood. That is democracy.

 

Scottish Nationalism has, and always has had, EVERYTHING to do with disdain for the rest of the UK, or more specifically most of it in the form of England. Anglophobia remains alive and well within the ranks, and is a vital binding force for the SNP, but in the persona of the Tories and Westminster since it's not terribly PC these days to show your true racism. The "them and poor oppressed us" myth is always an essential element of Nationalism.

 

In terms of another referendum, the SNP quite simply intend to try to keep having them as often as they can get away with doing so until they get the result they want, whereupon they will try to shut up shop forever. I am sure they will be hoping against hope that this wheeze gets a big boost from the election of another Tory government pledging to have an in-out EU referendum.

What intrigues me is the illogicality of their adherence to that old IRA saying "you have to be lucky all the time but we only have to be lucky once" inasmuch as they think it's OK that all they need to do is to win one referendum, irrespective of how many they have lost.

However common sense does seem to be prevailing since a recent Ipsos-Mori survey shows that having the backsides bored off us and the economy thrown into further years of uncertainty by way of a second referendum ranks a pitiful 19th out of 23 policies.

And that will be despite the 44.7 chipping in for all they are worth.

Scots are apparently more enthusiastic about an EU referendum than another separation one.

 

Do you have no rational and lucid point to make ?

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Whilst in minority government at Holyrood the SNP had rather an effective record of working constructively with other parties including Labour, so effectively in fact that the electorate rewarded them with an outright majority the next time around notwithstanding a proportional representation system specifically designed to prevent just that.

 

Of course the ultimate aim of the SNP is independence for Scotland as it has been for the best part of a century but that aim is at least a decade away now and despite what you might suggest, Scottish nationalism is nothing to do with disdain the rest of the UK but everything to do with social justice and a fairer society the sort of aspirations abandoned by 'New Labour' in their lust for power prior to the 1997 election.

 

Accordingly, you might just forgive me for finding rather tedious the recycling of spurious nonsense spouted by the Unionists during the referendum campaign in an election which is much more to do with a fairer distribution of wealth and resources than it is to do with the constitution.

 

If however, the Tories in fear of UKIP and their own rabid right wing choose to alter the constitutional landscape then that will be a very different matter indeed but it will not be a matter for the SNP or any other political party to impose their will but will, as Ms Sturgeon constantly reiterates, be a matter for the people.

 

There will not be another referendum unless a party or a combination of parties with such a commitment in their manifestos gets a majority at Holyrood. That is democracy.

 

 You seem to have rather broadened the debate.  You make reference to the SNP's performance in the Holyrood Parliament and I would agree that it started off pretty well.  Believe it or not, I even voted for them once!  But I'm not sure that you can extrapolate a decent and cooperative performance in a Scottish Parliament which is what the SNP want (albeit with greater powers), to a balance of power involvement with a UK Parliament they want to break up.  In one they have an incentive to demonstrate that they can govern well whilst in the other they want to demonstrate it does not serve Scotland's purpose.

 

Whilst I am more than happy to respect your wish for social justice as a reason for wishing independence for Scotland, I do not accept that it is a view shared by everyone.  It was very clear in the referendum that there is a large part of the independence movement which wants Scotland to be independent for some vague notion of freedom and for better or worse.  But whilst I respect your views on social justice, I personally can't see this as a compelling reason for choosing independence.  The current political climate might well allow more social justice in an independent Scotland but political climates can change pretty quickly and a few years down the line there could just as easily be an environment of greater social justice South of the Border.  You may see this as an election about campaigning for fairer distribution of wealth but then so do Labour and the Lib Dems.  There would be more chance of electing a Government capable of delivering improvements in social justice if the waters were not being muddied by a party whose raison d'etre is to gain Independence for Scotland and whose electoral success makes a Tory government more likely.

 

Finally, I think we need to be clear about what is a matter for the people andwhat is a matter for the people because Ms Sturgeon seems to be mightily confused.  Whether we vote one way or another in a referendum is, of course a matter for the people.  But what is in the hands of the politicians is whether we have a referendum at all.  In being pressed about whether there might be a 2nd referendum on independence Ms Sturgeon has been squirming most uncomfortably and saying firstly that it is in the hands of the people and then that there won't be one unless there is some as yet unspecified "material change".  The "independence come what may" brigade and the hordes of new members attracted to the SNP by the nationalistic sloganising of the referendum will be sure to convince the SNP leadership that a pledge to hold another referendum should be in the party's 2016 Holyrood manifesto.  It seems pretty clear that Sturgeon and her cronies will require little convincing.  This would mean the Holyrood election would be dominated by the independence issue rather than the more pressing needs of the population.  That would be a betrayal of the Scottish people.

 

Referendums on major constitutional matters are disruptive and divisive and should therefore be no more frequent than once in a generation.  We have had the referendum on independence and the people have spoken.  Sturgeon should respect their decision and get on with her job of looking after the interests of the Scottish people by using the devolved powers that the democratic process has entrusted her with.   Let us have a clear statement that there will not be another referendum for at least another 10 years and work together with the system we now have to improve the lot of the Scottish people. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

You seem a bit confused yourself. What Nicola Sturgeon is saying is that if the Scottish People don't want another referendum then they simply need to use the ballot box to prevent any party having a mandate to do so.It is not in the hands of the politicians but the electorate.That is democracy. What authority do you or anyone else have to dictate what future electoral candidates have in their manifestos?

Edited by cantankerousoldgit
  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Whilst in minority government at Holyrood the SNP had rather an effective record of working constructively with other parties including Labour, so effectively in fact that the electorate rewarded them with an outright majority the next time around notwithstanding a proportional representation system specifically designed to prevent just that.

 

Of course the ultimate aim of the SNP is independence for Scotland as it has been for the best part of a century but that aim is at least a decade away now and despite what you might suggest, Scottish nationalism is nothing to do with disdain the rest of the UK but everything to do with social justice and a fairer society the sort of aspirations abandoned by 'New Labour' in their lust for power prior to the 1997 election.

 

Accordingly, you might just forgive me for finding rather tedious the recycling of spurious nonsense spouted by the Unionists during the referendum campaign in an election which is much more to do with a fairer distribution of wealth and resources than it is to do with the constitution.

 

If however, the Tories in fear of UKIP and their own rabid right wing choose to alter the constitutional landscape then that will be a very different matter indeed but it will not be a matter for the SNP or any other political party to impose their will but will, as Ms Sturgeon constantly reiterates, be a matter for the people.

 

There will not be another referendum unless a party or a combination of parties with such a commitment in their manifestos gets a majority at Holyrood. That is democracy.

 

 You seem to have rather broadened the debate.  You make reference to the SNP's performance in the Holyrood Parliament and I would agree that it started off pretty well.  Believe it or not, I even voted for them once!  But I'm not sure that you can extrapolate a decent and cooperative performance in a Scottish Parliament which is what the SNP want (albeit with greater powers), to a balance of power involvement with a UK Parliament they want to break up.  In one they have an incentive to demonstrate that they can govern well whilst in the other they want to demonstrate it does not serve Scotland's purpose.

 

Whilst I am more than happy to respect your wish for social justice as a reason for wishing independence for Scotland, I do not accept that it is a view shared by everyone.  It was very clear in the referendum that there is a large part of the independence movement which wants Scotland to be independent for some vague notion of freedom and for better or worse.  But whilst I respect your views on social justice, I personally can't see this as a compelling reason for choosing independence.  The current political climate might well allow more social justice in an independent Scotland but political climates can change pretty quickly and a few years down the line there could just as easily be an environment of greater social justice South of the Border.  You may see this as an election about campaigning for fairer distribution of wealth but then so do Labour and the Lib Dems.  There would be more chance of electing a Government capable of delivering improvements in social justice if the waters were not being muddied by a party whose raison d'etre is to gain Independence for Scotland and whose electoral success makes a Tory government more likely.

 

Finally, I think we need to be clear about what is a matter for the people andwhat is a matter for the people because Ms Sturgeon seems to be mightily confused.  Whether we vote one way or another in a referendum is, of course a matter for the people.  But what is in the hands of the politicians is whether we have a referendum at all.  In being pressed about whether there might be a 2nd referendum on independence Ms Sturgeon has been squirming most uncomfortably and saying firstly that it is in the hands of the people and then that there won't be one unless there is some as yet unspecified "material change".  The "independence come what may" brigade and the hordes of new members attracted to the SNP by the nationalistic sloganising of the referendum will be sure to convince the SNP leadership that a pledge to hold another referendum should be in the party's 2016 Holyrood manifesto.  It seems pretty clear that Sturgeon and her cronies will require little convincing.  This would mean the Holyrood election would be dominated by the independence issue rather than the more pressing needs of the population.  That would be a betrayal of the Scottish people.

 

Referendums on major constitutional matters are disruptive and divisive and should therefore be no more frequent than once in a generation.  We have had the referendum on independence and the people have spoken.  Sturgeon should respect their decision and get on with her job of looking after the interests of the Scottish people by using the devolved powers that the democratic process has entrusted her with.   Let us have a clear statement that there will not be another referendum for at least another 10 years and work together with the system we now have to improve the lot of the Scottish people. 

 

I get it you do not think independence is a good idea and it does not have your personal backing. I think independence is a fine idea and, having thoroughly researched the matter, think it also makes sound economic sense especially in the medium and long term. I get that you have a contrasting view in that regard too.

 

However, that was last year's argument and it is not the SNP or it's supporters making that argument at this election but the unionists such as yourself, The SNP have said time and time again that they accept the democratic will of the people and have not once made independence an issue.

 

The issues are the economy, welfare, job creation, social justice, defence spending and a whole raft of issues. A significant number of people like what the SNP are doing and saying on these issues that is why the are doing rather well in the opinion polls and if we wake up on the 8th of May with a significantly larger SNP group of MPs in a hung parliament we will be not a step closer to independence but we might just be that much the better for it in the UK as a whole and without the lunacy of the prospect of wanting to leave the largest free trade area on the planet driven by the xenophobia of a man in an Arthur Daley coat who with a distaste for all foreigners including the subsidy junkey Jocks who's only elected representative in this country thinks it's fair game to make fun a Scottish cabinet minister because of his name and skin colour..

Edited by Kingsmills
Link to post
Share on other sites

You seem a bit confused yourself. What Nicola Sturgeon is saying is that if the Scottish People don't want another referendum then they simply need to use the ballot box to prevent any party having a mandate to do so.It is not in the hands of the politicians but the electorate.That is democracy. What authority do you or anyone else have to dictate what future electoral candidates have in their manifestos?

 

 

 A classically simplistic Nationalist take on a standard Nationalist electoral dodge! The SNP have been very good at jumping on that bandwagon ever since the days where every Community Council election where they polled more than 10% became a referendum on the constitution.

The problem is the Nationalists' complete inability (or at best desire) to understand that most people are not independence obsessives like themselves. Hence if most people see a manifesto which best fits their world picture of things that actually matter - such as tax, health, welfare, law and order, defence, foreign piolicy, immigration - they are likely to vote for that party. There may well be minor things in it which they feel are either unimportant or irrelevant but that doesn't deter them from casting their vote in that direction on the basis of the issues which matter.

One current issue of minimal importance and relevance is a second referendum - as shown in the recent Ipsos Mori survey which places this a humble 19th out of 23 factors.

But then when the SNP, boosted by total Labour fecklessness, get votes on other issues - many of them offering electoral bribes using other people's money - they will present this as some resounding endorsement of their desire for another bite at the cherry which rejected them last September.

Even with the 2014 referendum, that was a notion which barely surfaced at all during the 2011 Holyrood campaign - because most people didn't regard it as important. But it was somewhere in their manifesto and when, post-sandwich shop, the SNP got an overall majority, the Greeks poured out of the Trojan Horse on the Friday after the poll and we heard about nothing else for the next three and a half years.

Link to post
Share on other sites

A second referendum is simply not on the table at this general election so I 'm no sure why you keep wanting to discuss it? Would it not be better to focus on the issues, some of which you list as being currently of more importance to people that something not anyone's agenda. As for being simplistic- the idea that a nationalist conspiracy could offer free bananas in order to sneak independence in by the back door is not only simplistic but shows a contempt for the Scottish electorate.

Link to post
Share on other sites

From some of the arguments being advanced one gets the impression that just over half the population think that just under half the population are naive, woad painted, claymore rattling, gullible idiots rather than intelligent reflective people who have a rational considered contrary view.

Link to post
Share on other sites

From some of the arguments being advanced one gets the impression that just over half the population think that just under half the population are naive, woad painted, claymore rattling, gullible idiots rather than intelligent reflective people who have a rational considered contrary view.

I'll wave my claymore to that.

Link to post
Share on other sites

From some of the arguments being advanced one gets the impression that just over half the population think that just under half the population are naive, woad painted, claymore rattling, gullible idiots rather than intelligent reflective people who have a rational considered contrary view.

You don't have to spend very long in the classrooms of Scotland to realise that probably around a third of the population just don't have the intellectual wherewithal to have the remotest scooby about even basic political issues, be they relate to the referendum, a Scottish election or a general election. That may sound harsh, but it's an evolutionary reality for which there are many parallels and, once seen, can very easily be believed.

There is a lot to be gained by any party who can persuade this sector of the population that they will gain most out of voting for them. The Tories to some extent achieved this, albeit not totally, in the Thatcher era. Before that, this was a significant factor in the Atlee landslide of 1945 which, by the election of 1950, had shrunk to a marginal majority which only lasted until the following year when the Tories did the trick for the next 13.

A demographic analysis of the referendum vote and of the Scottish vote in this forthcoming general election could therefore be revealing.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

From some of the arguments being advanced one gets the impression that just over half the population think that just under half the population are naive, woad painted, claymore rattling, gullible idiots rather than intelligent reflective people who have a rational considered contrary view.

You don't have to spend very long in the classrooms of Scotland to realise that probably around a third of the population just don't have the intellectual wherewithal to have the remotest scooby about even basic political issues, be they relate to the referendum, a Scottish election or a general election. That may sound harsh, but it's an evolutionary reality for which there are many parallels and, once seen, can very easily be believed.

There is a lot to be gained by any party who can persuade this sector of the population that they will gain most out of voting for them. The Tories to some extent achieved this, albeit not totally, in the Thatcher era. Before that, this was a significant factor in the Atlee landslide of 1945 which, by the election of 1950, had shrunk to a marginal majority which only lasted until the following year when the Tories did the trick for the next 13.

A demographic analysis of the referendum vote and of the Scottish vote in this forthcoming general election could therefore be revealing.

 

It is clear that you have a very poor and cynical view of your fellow countrymen. Thankfully, as with much else, in that, you are wholly misguided....

Link to post
Share on other sites

I would expect a separatist to be nothing other than in total denial of these well established eduational realities relating to the distribution of the vote. Presumably, now that the Brains Trust is no longer with us, you instead tune into Jeremy Kyle on a weekly basis?

Link to post
Share on other sites

From some of the arguments being advanced one gets the impression that just over half the population think that just under half the population are naive, woad painted, claymore rattling, gullible idiots rather than intelligent reflective people who have a rational considered contrary view.

You don't have to spend very long in the classrooms of Scotland to realise that probably around a third of the population just don't have the intellectual wherewithal to have the remotest scooby about even basic political issues, be they relate to the referendum, a Scottish election or a general election. That may sound harsh, but it's an evolutionary reality for which there are many parallels and, once seen, can very easily be believed.

There is a lot to be gained by any party who can persuade this sector of the population that they will gain most out of voting for them. The Tories to some extent achieved this, albeit not totally, in the Thatcher era. Before that, this was a significant factor in the Atlee landslide of 1945 which, by the election of 1950, had shrunk to a marginal majority which only lasted until the following year when the Tories did the trick for the next 13.

A demographic analysis of the referendum vote and of the Scottish vote in this forthcoming general election could therefore be revealing.

I think I see where we are going here. Presumably those who disagree with your political viewpoints do so because they don't share your intellectual capacity and should not be entitled to to an opinion let alone to express themselves at the ballot box. Fortunately I have spent considerably more time in Scotland's classrooms and can reassure you that your depressing analysis is incorrect.

  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Presumably your classroom included a sandpit in which you and your fellow educational happy-clappies spent much of your time with your heads immersed.

Must be the same sandpit that David Cameron, Nick Clegg and Ed Miliband have had their heads in for months :lol:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. : Terms of Use : Guidelines : Privacy Policy